Paris Climate Change Accord and Elitist Hypocrisy

Donald Trump fulfills an election promise to withdraw the US from the completely ineffectual Paris climate accord... and the liberal, progressive Left loses its collective mind. The most incensed of course are those in the governing class who embraced the accord as an expression of their noble and superior values.

But have you ever noticed how the governing elites conduct their lives in a manner completely contrary to the values they proselytise to the rest of us? Have a look at the new Getugly video!


Climate change science wrong again!

Man-made climate change ‘science’ seems to be unique among scientific disciplines in that it doesn’t matter how consistently it generates predictions that turn out to be wrong when compared to real world observations…. it never justifies re-assessing the validity of the theory.



Scientist accused of ’crying wolf’ on climate change with claim that Arctic sea ice would vanish

Instead, we get the argument from the very people who kept getting it wrong for 10 to 20 years that we are obliged to consider this track record irrelevant and to accept that all the claims, predictions and policies they are promoting today are beyond questioning.

Shockingly, there are still adults out there who believe their absolute refusal to recognise any justification for any degree of scepticism about the claim is the most rational position to hold on the issue.

Quick thought: Carbon tax is based on a false premise… but we’re doing it anyway.


Read article at: Kelly McParland: Trudeau’s carbon plan means Canadians will pay more for a tax that will have very little impact

Rather than saying the tax will have ‘very little impact’…. let’s be more direct and say there is no evidence it will have any measurable effect on the climate or temperatures of the planet in the near or distant future whatsoever.
Therefore, the justification they are using for imposing this tax is blatantly false… and they know it. In fact, we ALL know it.
But we live in an era where the masses are happy to endorse the lies of the political class if they are marketed in a manner that strokes their ‘progressive’ egos and fulfils their priority of receiving social and moral validation.

Rebuttals of the week! #4: How do you drive ‘progressives’ crazy? Ask them to prove their point.

One thing that seems to catch ‘progressives’ completely off-guard is asking them to support their opinions and assertions. You often get the impression that the necessity of basing opinions on things you know to be… well, true – is just something that never occurred to them.  It’s as if expecting them to be able to prove their point is some kind of atrocious breach of ‘progressive’ etiquette or something – and all the language of compassion and tolerance is very quickly dropped when they are confronted with the fact that they really don’t know why they believe the things they espouse.

You will see in this exchange with ‘DE‘ an example of how quick ‘progressives’ are to get their backs up when you have the temerity to politely ask them to justify the definitive assertions.

The context for this exchange was a question in a survey distributed by Canadian MP Kellie Leitch to her supporters. The questions was, “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

The National Post published a column by Matt Gurney about the inevitable controversy that arose, called  : Is it unCanadian to worry that some would-be Canadians may be unCanadian?

Here was DE‘s take on the subject:

Doug EarlDE

 Canadian values change over time, and immigration has been one of the factors contributing to that change. Stagnant values, or the quest to somehow freeze the values of a country in time, only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others and it is usually the values of the dominant class that get so codified.

It was that first sentence in particular that caught my attention. It’s the kind of bland, generically ‘progressive’ platitude that is easy to agree with. But does it really mean anything? Is his assertion about the world connected to any actual knowledge or information? And if not, then why offer it as an opinion or hold it as a belief?

So I asked….

How has immigration “been one of the factors contributing to that change”?

“only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others”
Are you suggesting that there are not values that are better than others?

Doug EarlDE

 Because new people bring new ideas and values to a situation and for a society to progress both sets of values must be reconciled. And yes there are values that are better than others, but which are which is subjective. Generally speaking, people who think their values are 100 per cent superior to everyone else’s have at least one glaring flaw in their value system–a gross and misplaced sense of their own moral superiority. That’s not a value that needs to be perpetuated. In fact, it’s a value that often leads to aggression, and, on a societal level, to war.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

That all sounds very nice …. but you didn’t answer the question. What ‘new ideas and values’ did Canada gain that it had lacked and which immigration brought and improved us?

Doug EarlDE

Obviously you feel that the continuous immigration to Canada over the past 400 or so years, including that of your own ancestors, has added nothing of value to the country. In your case, I’m afraid I am forced to agree.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Like I said, as is the case with most ‘progressives’, it didn’t take much for DE to drop the facade of tolerant, non-judgemental, compassionate pluralist and reveal the nasty, vindictive nature just below the surface.

And notice that he responds to a request for evidence by inventing an unflattering opinion for me that I have never expressed but which he asserts I “obviously feel”. He then attacks me for the opinion that he just made up and projected onto me.

It’s important to pause and think about that response and what it says about the character, the intellect and the reasoning skills of the person. It’s important because once you are aware of it, you will see that ‘progressives’ resort to this over and over again. And the purpose of ‘Rebuttals of the Week’! is to build a case that objectively demonstrates that people who are attracted to and who embrace ‘progressive’ concepts, ideals, politics and policies are inherently poor thinkers.

Here is how I responded to DE‘s ‘straw man’ argument. As you will see, he just kept digging himself deeper into the same hole:

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

What is obvious is that not only have you made an assertion that you can’t support… but one which you don’t actually believe. If you did believe it, you would have answered the question without hesitation the first time… let alone the second time. Of course, this is precisely why I posed the question: To highlight the fact that people such as yourself like to say things that make you feel very pluralistic and superior….but which have no connection to anything you actually know to be real. This is nothing but a self serving pose that you have adopted.

Doug EarlDE

Yeah, except there’s something you’re missing and that is that your question is so obviously that of a troll. You know as well as I do that immigrants from over 200 countries who have come here over the past 400 years have brought an almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country and that one of the foundational ideas of Canada is multiculturalism itself–to your great dismay, I’m sure. So if you want a list, troll, why don’t you make us a list of all the countries that have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution. Start with the country of your own ancestors, Underabridgeia.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 I’m a ‘troll’ because you’re embarrassed to admit you were just trying to say something politically-correct sounding that you don’t really mean? You say things like “almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country” …. but you can’t actually name one. And by the way…. multiculturalism is not an “idea or value” that immigrants brought here. It’s an idea that brought immigrants here. The fact that you’ve made a very transparent attempt to deflect from your inability to answer the question by putting the onus on me to ‘make a list’ to support a claim I never made just shows how desperate you are to salvage your credibility. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

Doug EarlDE

That all sounds very nice…. but you didn’t answer the question. What countries have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution?


Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 Really? You think doubling down on a straw man fallacy bolsters your credibility? You’ve had four opportunities now to select a single example from the “infinite multiplicity” you insist supports your claim. And all you’ve done for the last two posts is try and deflect from the fact that you have nothing to offer because your opinion isn’t based on having actually thought about it. Like most liberals/’progressives’ – you choose opinions you think will enhance your self-image rather than cultivating a point of view based on reasoned analysis, objectivity and critical thinking.


Doug EarlDE

Nope, that’s not it.

Going to Getugly Going to Getugly

Very convincing counterargument.

The hypocrisy of the climate change elite

Harris Signs

Like many jurisdictions around the Western world, Canada is  currently crawling with politicians desperate to demonstrate their “progressive” credentials by enacting various policies for the purported goal of saving the planet from climate change.

This of course comes in the wake of last year’s Paris Climate Thingy or whatever it was called – which enticed the world’s ruling elite to burn through more fossil fuel in a few days than entire towns consume in a year – travelling as they did in CO2 spewing government planes by their hundreds to the City of Environmentally Unfriendly Lights, staying at luxury hotels, dining on expensive French cuisine and being chauffeured to and fro in gas guzzling limousines. All for the noble cause of ensuring that the rest of us face such punishing economic and social repercussions for the comparative fraction of energy consumption required to sustain a reasonable facsimile of a middle class existence.

Of course, I’m sure these politicians-cum-self anointed super-heroic planet savers detest all the luxuriating in opulent splendour and environmentally damaging extravagance. And sure…. it may look mind-numbingly hypocritical. And it may look like the same entitlement to privilege of the “let them eat cake” variety that the ruling class have claimed for themselves since the dawn of civilization. But let’s not be cynical.

Take tax-payer subsidised enviro-guru David Suzuki for example. As he patiently explained in a recent interview, he simply has to jet-set around the globe. It’s necessary for his lucrative career, you see. And he has to own multiple, excessive energy consuming  luxury properties. They’re investments, don’t you know. After all, you don’t expect him to prioritize concern for the environment over his preferred lifestyle and economic self-interest, do you? That would be nuts! Who would advocate such a notion?

Similarly, I am sure that if our politicians decided that it was in their best interest to adopt a lifestyle that reflected their deeply held beliefs they would do so.

Okay, perhaps the sincerity of our political class is open to question. But at least the policies they are committed to imposing on us are founded on a premise of such unassailable precision that such state intrusions and the excoriation of anyone who questions their efficacy is justified.

For surely if there was reasonable evidence that the theoretical impetus for these policies was less certain than we have been led to believe… and surely if there was even a hint that the scientists and institutions that have hitched their credibility – and therefore funding opportunities – to the theory were engaged in anything other than disinterested, objective pursuit of truth…then such aggressive implementation of said policies could only be understood as either reckless governmental incompetence or deliberate deception.

Perhaps it is useful at this point to note a widely unreported report in the journal Nature Climate Change issued within the last few weeks. It is relevant to the issue at hand because it confirms that there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming since 1998. It also says that the media supported attempts by major scientific institutions(such as NOAAthat represent the primary sources for the promotion of the catastrophic man-made climate change agenda) to smear the credibility of science that contradicted their narrative was unfounded.

The paper states:

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

This is but the latest of any number of significant challenges to the narrative of  the alleged “settled science” that ever increasing CO2 emissions are the causal factor to impending catastrophic  global warming.

That the mainstream media appear disinclined to report such significant findings is perplexing. That our governing elite are so eager to expand their power on the basis of a premise that is so evidently deserving of renewed scrutiny is deeply troubling.

Why do ‘progressives’ refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with the premise of catastrophic man-made climate change?

In Sight, 36 X 48 inches - Copy
A recent column in the Ottawa Citizen posed the question, “Conservatives and climate change just don’t mix. But why not?” The author of the piece, Mohammed Adam, was at pains to fathom the great mystery of why this peculiar sub-category of the human species don’t simply accept the premise of catastrophic man-made climate change like he and his friends… you know, normal people – have all done. Adam prefaced his argument by stressing that this was definitely “not an attempt to pass judgement“. Heaven forbid! He then offered a statement of his true intentions which expressed no passing of judgement whatsoever: “It is really an effort to understand why conservatives often park themselves on the wrong side of this compelling issue”.
In other words, there are two sides: People who agree with him, and people who are predisposed to being wrong. But just to be clear, he’s not passing judgement.
Adam’s support for his premise amounted to random quotes from conservative politicians expressing varying degrees of uncertainty about the conclusiveness of the anthropogenic climate change theory. Tellingly, he felt no obligation to provide any specific evidence or argument to justify his assertion that this automatically situated these people on the “wrong side” of the issue. Actual reasons for embracing or not embracing the definitiveness of the theory are apparently irrelevant as far as Adam is concerned. You are simply obliged to embrace it – otherwise he is entitled to ‘not judge’ you as being unwilling or unable to comprehend what he deems the only acceptable opinion.
Of course, the question Adam poses could easily be turned around to ask: “Why do ‘progressives’ refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with the premise of catastrophic man-made climate change?”
Part of the answer to that compelling question could be the tendency to take for granted that concepts which appeal to them automatically equate with pure, unqualified truth. Could the unexamined conviction that their own perspective is immune to bias or error account for this habit of seeing dissenting views as symptoms of pathology?
Could this be the explanation for progressive’s commitment to an exclusively uncritical embrace of the man-made climate change premise? Is it plausible that their ultimate motivation has more to do with a desire to identify with ego-enhancing narratives than pursuing objective reality?
It is worthwhile noting that within the past month the journal Nature Climate Change issued a report confirming that there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming since 1998. It also says that the widely reported efforts by major scientific institutions to discredit science that contradicted their narrative was unfounded. The paper states:
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”
This is but the most recent in a long list of challenges to the catastrophic man-made climate change narrative. No doubt those who define the “right side” of the issue as uncritical, reflexive acceptance of that narrative will steadfastly deny the implications of this one as they have all of the others.

Climate change is an “Opinion-Product”

Inspiration, 48 X 36 inchesI am sure I am not the only person who has noticed that critical thinking appears to be in short supply these days… not just on the issue of climate change, but in general.

Our little epoch is marked by a tendency for people to adopt and internalize prepackaged opinions on all sorts of subjects for all sorts of reasons other than objective truth. Essentially, it’s mass consumerism pushed to it’s inevitable extreme: we’ve gone from mass-marketing desirable physical objects to mass-marketing desireable subjective opinions. And in both cases, it’s the convenience that really sells the product.